Kinraich v. Dib

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinraich v. Dib

264 A.D.2d 817, 695 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9424

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 817 (Kinraich v. Dib) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinraich v. Dib, 264 A.D.2d 817, 695 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 4, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim. The plaintiffs sustained the initial burden of demonstrating their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that the vehicle driven by the plaintiff Solomon Kinraich had been lawfully stopped at a stop sign for several seconds when it was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant Lucille Dib (see, Centeno v Goldstein, 261 AD2d 566; Kassim v City of New York, 256 AD2d 386; Ner v Celis, 245 AD2d 278). The defendants’ evidentiary submissions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether Solomon Kinraich engaged in any conduct which helped bring about the accident (see, Kassim v City of New York, supra). Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 4, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim. The plaintiffs sustained the initial burden of demonstrating their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that the vehicle driven by the plaintiff Solomon Kinraich had been lawfully stopped at a stop sign for several seconds when it was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant Lucille Dib (see, Centeno v Goldstein, 261 AD2d 566; Kassim v City of New York, 256 AD2d 386; Ner v Celis, 245 AD2d 278). The defendants’ evidentiary submissions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether Solomon Kinraich engaged in any conduct which helped bring about the accident (see, Kassim v City of New York, supra). Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 817, 695 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinraich-v-dib-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack